Share this

Given the scale and needs of the U.S. government, infiltration by foreign agents is a legitimate concern. But it is an issue best handled quietly through the existing security procedures. Tightening those procedures is a security risk in its own right, as it could deny the nation the services of talented immigrants who have much to offer. The fact that the State Department and other agencies - over a decade after 9/11 - still do not have adequate speakers of strategically critical languages suggest the security checks remain onerous, rather then lax.

In the case of Ms. Abedin, publicly naming and shaming individuals is offensive and not how things are done in the United States. Different policy preferences are not the sign of a conspiracy. The State Department's moves towards engaging the Muslim Brotherhood is a policy option, dictated in great part by the reality of events in Egypt. It may be unwise (although it is tough to see other options) but it is not the result of secret cabals. Similarly, that many Muslim-Americans do not share the warm feelings of a majority of Americans about Israel does not make them unpatriotic - these are legitimate political beliefs. The Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and organization - even of ideas with which I do not agree.

Finally, historically new immigrants and their offspring - grateful for the blessings of American society - have demonstrated tremendous patriotism and served this country courageously. Changing this dynamic, which has been such a source of strength to the United States, would be rwera grievous blow to national security.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.